http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
ARIEL SHARON is the Harry Truman of Israeli politics. He
displays many of the same distinguishing traits that made
Truman a great president and the most brilliantly right man
of his time.

Most of the time, it is an abuse of the English language when
any politician is called a "leader." Leadership among
politicians is as rare as Yasser Arafat at a bar mitzvah.
Anybody who depends on votes for leading is suffering from
a conflict of interest, as fundamental as a man at an orgy
wanting to have a good time while trying to put his clothes
on.

In a legal matter, a judge recuses himself when anything
even resembling the possibility of a conflict of interest arises.
On that basis, it should be obvious to ask: "Why do we
expect a politician to be a leader if there is a conflict between
the good of his country and the survival of his career?"

If there were a truth-in-labeling law, politicians would be
called "followers." They go in one direction until the polls
they are following point in the opposite direction, and then
they do an about-face.

Different times demand different kinds of leaders. People
don't necessarily know what is the best solution for their
problems. That's why we take advice from people we call
"experts." We naturally assume that they know better than
we do, and we take their advice.

But with voters, it's the exact opposite. We elect politicians
as experts and find we have changed places with them.
Since we can throw them out of office if they don't take
orders from us, they dance like puppets to the beat of the
public drum. That's why the main occupation of politicians
is not studying issues and leading, but studying polls and
following.

This is the profound difference between Sharon and every
other so-called "leader" in Israel. When Israel was in its
deepest weariness and misery, desperately seeking relief
from the incessant horror of warfare, Sharon was not only
rejected but was condemned and even hated. When he
warned us that the Arabs could not be trusted, Israelis
needed so desperately to feel that he was wrong, they didn't
listen long enough to realize that history would prove he was
right.

As his popularity polls kept going down, his voice kept going
up. He kept pleading with us to realize that, while we were
giving so much for peace, the Arabs, in return, were going to
give us bullets and bombs and endless war.

He knew that the Arabs would not compromise, seeing not
concessions for peace but confessions of weakness. He
knew that before Arafat attended a peace conference, his
Palestinian colleagues had their own conferences to prepare
for the eventuality of the peace process breaking down,
since it was their intention to cause it to break down as a
prelude to war.

It is unbelievable that Sharon's colleagues and
contemporaries, whose own experiences proved that they
couldn't trust Arab intentions, were the very same people
who believed we must trust the Arabs as the only way to
achieve peace. The desire for peace of every Israeli was
made to order for the duplicity of the Arabs who
immediately viewed it as unilateral disarmament.

While the rest of the country was enveloped in a desperation
for peace that blinded them from reality, Sharon maintained
a clarity of vision about the Palestinian state of mind that
was unshakable. He knew that Arafat is a better actor than
was Sir Laurence Olivier. He knew that while we were
creating a partnership with the PLO, Arafat was creating a
tacit partnership with Hamas.

We kept giving and he kept standing by, watching the killing.
We thought we had no alternative but to try for peace and
he felt he had no alternative but to achieve on his terms; the
kind of peace that would result in the whole of Israel in the
hands of the Arabs.

And undeterred, while he faced consistent ridicule, he was
constantly pleading and begging every citizen, minister,
prime minister, and anybody he bumped into, that the idea
of land for peace is a brilliant idea if you made a deal with a
peace partner with real intent. But Arafat is only interested
in more land for waging more war.

Sharon knew that the Israelis were in the midst of a
delusional, self-serving fantasy. While the Israelis wanted to
make believe they were involved in the peace process, we
were not involved in a peace process with a true partner in
peace. Sharon was the only leader who saw through the
charade and had the strength and determination to call it as
he saw it.

Sharon had the guts and the fierce determination to run
against the popularity polls and state a very unpopular
opinion, putting at risk his reputation and his political future.
And that is precisely why he is the right person to lead this
great nation called Israel at this critical moment in history.

Truman led a country just out of a great war; a country
whose people were sick of war and wanted desperately to
return to a peaceful existence.

Truman also realized that on the horizon was an enemy --
the Soviet Union -- who was bent on world domination. So
Truman stood fast and made unpopular decisions first in
Greece, then Berlin, and finally in Korea. It was only in the
fullness of time that we were able to see how right he was.

Therein lies the similarity between the simple haberdasher
from Missouri, and Ariel
Sharon.